JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. K.N. Ray, learned counsel for the appellants in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 782 of 2009 and Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 789 of 2009, Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the appellants in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 788 of 2009 and Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 799 of 2009 and Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 12 of 2010, Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 811 of 2010 and Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 934 of 2009 and Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. Since all the appeals arise out of a common judgment, the same are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 25.07.2009 (sentence passed on 27.07.2009) passed by Sri Deepak Nath Tiwary, learned Sessions Judge, F.T.C. II, Giridih in S. T. No. 502 of 2007 whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 302/34 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life with a fine of Rs. 15,000/- for each of the appellants and in default of payment of fine, the amount shall be released as arrears of land revenue under the provisions of Section 421(1)(d) of the Cr.P.C. 4. An FIR was instituted by Kalwa Mosammat on the allegation that on 17.01.2007 the son of the informant after having meal was taking rest at which point of time, one Shambhu Singh had come and took her son to Gadi Srirampur market where accused persons had caught hold of Bhanu Das, the son of the informant and dragged him towards the house of accused Arun Thakur. It has been alleged that they fastened her son with a rope and on the orders of Nand Kishore Ram, all the accused persons started assaulting the deceased Bhanu Das by various weapons. It has been alleged that thinking him to be dead, the accused persons left the place of occurrence. It has also been alleged that accused Arun Thakur had brought two bombs and a pistol and after keeping them by the side of Bhanu Das, the police was informed. Subsequently the police came and took away Bhanu Das to the hospital and on the way he died. It has also been alleged that prior to the occurrence, regular threat was being given to the informant. Subsequently the police came and took away Bhanu Das to the hospital and on the way he died. It has also been alleged that prior to the occurrence, regular threat was being given to the informant. Based on the aforesaid allegation, Giridih (M) P. S. Case No. 233 of 2007 was instituted for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 307 and 302 of I.P.C. Investigation resulted in submission of charge-sheet and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the court of Sessions and thereafter charge was framed for the offences under 147, 148, 341, 323, 325, 307 & 302/34 of I.P.C. to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The learned trial court vide judgment dated 25.07.2009 had convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for life and a fine of Rs. 15,000/- to be paid by each of the appellants. 6. In course of trial, 12 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W. 1 – Swaroop Bachchan has stated that on 13.07.2007 at about 2 P.M., he was coming from school to take lunch at his house and when he reached near Durga Mandir, he has seen the deceased Bhanu Das having been fastened to an electric pole. It has been alleged that the accused persons were assaulting him and Bhanu Das subsequently became unconscious. He has further stated that the accused persons untied him and dragged him near the house of Arun Thakur where they once again assaulted him. He deposed that he was restrained from going to the police station by being given threat of death and the informant was also not allowed to go to the police station. He has further stated that the accused persons had kept a bomb and revolver near the person of Bhanu Das in order to falsely implicate him in a case of dacoity. He has also stated that his statement was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. 7. In cross-examination, this witness has deposed that he left the job of teaching as he did not receive his remuneration. He stated that he was working as a teacher about one month prior to the date of occurrence on the permission of the Headmaster. 7. In cross-examination, this witness has deposed that he left the job of teaching as he did not receive his remuneration. He stated that he was working as a teacher about one month prior to the date of occurrence on the permission of the Headmaster. This witness has disclosed that a huge group of 200 people had gathered when he went to the place of occurrence and he had seen the occurrence from the side of the Panchayat Bhawan out of the fear. He has also stated that each of the accused had pistols and 3 shots were fired. This witness has requested the Court to provide him with security as he has a threat to his life. P.W. 2 – Md. Garden has stated that he had recorded his statement before the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. on account of the pressure created by the police. This witness has proved the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. which has been marked as Exhibit 2. He has further stated that at the time of the incident, he was sitting near the welding shop of Ajay Sahu and on hearing the alarm of cry had come out and had seen the accused persons forcibly dragging Bhanu Das. He has further submitted that he had come to the house of Bhanu Das and had disclosed about the incident to his mother. This witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution. 8. P.W. 3 – Dr. Kamleshwari Prasad was the member of the Medical Board along with Dr. B.N. Das and Dr. A.P.N. Deo which conducted autopsy on the body of Bhanu Das and had found the following injuries : (i) Lacerated wound on right elbow 1/4” x 1/4” (ii) Swelling – 1” in diameter over left elbow (iii) Multiple bruise over backside of chest measuring 2” x 1/4” to 3” x 1/4” (iv) Echymosis around right eye ball. (v) Lacerated would – 1” x 1/4” over left leg. (vi) Bruise – 4” x 1/4” over abdomen (vii) Lacerated would over right arm – 1” x 1/4”. (viii) Lacerated would – 2” x 1/4” over left parietal area. (v) Lacerated would – 1” x 1/4” over left leg. (vi) Bruise – 4” x 1/4” over abdomen (vii) Lacerated would over right arm – 1” x 1/4”. (viii) Lacerated would – 2” x 1/4” over left parietal area. On Dissection: Skull fractured – left parietal bone; cranial cavity contained full of haemotoma present; subcutaneous tissue in neck-NAD; Larynx and trachea-NAD; Hyoic bone-intact; lungs – both sides congested; Heart-left chamber empty and right chamber contained blood; Liver spleen and kidney-congested; Urinary bladder-empty; Stomach contained partially digested food with no smell; and mucoss membrane – NAD. This witness has stated that the injuries mentioned above were caused by hard and blunt substance like lathi, iron rod and cycle chain and the said injuries were ante mortem in nature. In the opinion of the Medical Board, the cause of death was on account of shock and haemorrhage, as a result of the head injury. This witness has proved the Post Mortem report which has been marked as Exhibit 3. 9. P.W. 4 - Parwati Devi is the sister of the deceased who had come to her parents’ house on the date of occurrence. She has stated that when the deceased was having his meal, the accused persons had come and taken him away on the pretext of compromising the dispute between both the sides. She has stated that P.W. 2 – Md. Garden had come to his house at 2 PM and informed that he has seen the accused persons assaulting Bhanu Das. On getting such information, she and her mother (P.W. 6) had immediately rushed to the place of occurrence where they had seen Bhanu Das being brutally assaulted. She had also seen her brother tied with a rope and he was dragged by the accused persons and taken behind the house of Arun Thakur where he was once again assaulted. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that there was a previous dispute between the deceased and Nand Kishore as Nand Kishore wanted Bhanu Das to leave his work with the contractor – Murari Bauri which Bhanu Das has refused. This witness has further disclosed that there were about 40-50 persons of the locality who had assembled near the place of occurrence. This witness has further disclosed that there were about 40-50 persons of the locality who had assembled near the place of occurrence. P.W. 5 – Monu Das is the brother of the deceased who has deposed that after returning from the jungle where he had gone to bring wood, he was informed by Md. Garden (P.W. 2) about his brother being assaulted by the accused persons. This witness along with his sister (P.W. 4), the informant (P.W. 6) and the wife of Bhanu Das had gone to the place of occurrence where he had seen the assault. He has further stated that when he tried to save his brother, accused – Nand Kishore had assaulted him with danda. He has also stated that his brother was taken behind the house of Arun Thakur where Arun Thakur climbed on the chest of the deceased and repeatedly pressed his chest. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that the people used to call the deceased a dacoit. P.W. 6 – Mossamat Kalwa is the informant and the mother of the deceased. She has deposed that on the date of occurrence, she had gone to the jungle to bring wood along with her son P.W. 5 and when they returned Md. Garden (P.W. 2) informed them about the assault being committed upon Bhanu Das. She has stated that all went rushing to the place of occurrence where they had seen the incident and although several persons had assembled near the place of occurrence, none had tried to save the deceased Bhanu Das. She has stated that when she had tried to save her son, she was threatened. She has also stated that the accused persons had kept bombs and pistol besides the deceased. In cross-examination, this witness has deposed that there was no case against the deceased and that Bhanu Das worked for Murari Bauri who was a contractor. She has admitted to the fact that the accused persons were on inimical terms with Murari Bauri. P.W. 7 – Basant Kumar Das has proved his signature on the inquest report marked as Exhibit 4. P.W. 8 – Prahlad Turi is a formal witness who has proved his signature on the requisition of the post mortem report which has been marked as Exhibit 4/1. 10. P.W. 7 – Basant Kumar Das has proved his signature on the inquest report marked as Exhibit 4. P.W. 8 – Prahlad Turi is a formal witness who has proved his signature on the requisition of the post mortem report which has been marked as Exhibit 4/1. 10. P.W. 9 – Raj Kumar Das is another formal witness who has proved his signature on the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit 4/2. 11. P.W. 10 – Pir Mohammad is the Investigating Officer of the case who has stated that on receiving information about the assault in village Gadi Srirampur, entry in station diary was made and he along with other police personnel went to the place of occurrence. He has stated that Bhanu Das was brought on a jeep to Sadar hospital for treatment and the accused Arun Thakur also accompanied them. He further stated that Bhanu Das had haltingly described the incident to this witness. He has stated that Bhanu Das died in course of treatment and he had recorded the Fard Beyan of the mother of the deceased which was marked as Exhibit 5. He has proved the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit 6 and formal FIR marked as Exhibit 7. This witness has deposed that after taking over investigation, he went to the place of occurrence, the first being opposite the PCC road near a Ashok tree in front of Durga Mandir. He has stated that an electric pole was existing there where it is said that Bhanu Das was tied and assaulted. He has also described the second place of occurrence which was behind the house of Arun Thakur. He has further stated that none of the villagers have given their statement u/s 161 of Cr.P.C.. He had recorded the statement of Swaroop Bachchan and Md. Garden under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Subsequently, this witness has submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that the area was densely populated, but no one came forward to prevent the incident. 12. P.W. 11 – K.K. Jha was posted as a Judicial Magistrate, Giridih at the relevant point of time and he had recorded the statement of P.W. 1 & 2 under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The said statements have been proved and marked as Exhibit 8 and 8/1. 13. 12. P.W. 11 – K.K. Jha was posted as a Judicial Magistrate, Giridih at the relevant point of time and he had recorded the statement of P.W. 1 & 2 under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The said statements have been proved and marked as Exhibit 8 and 8/1. 13. P.W. 12 – Arvind Choudhary has proved the station diary entry no. 396 dated 13.07.2007 which has been marked as Exhibit 9. 14. The appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they had denied to have participated in the occurrence. 15. The defence has examined 2 witnesses in support of its case. D.W. 1 – Huro Rawani is the brother of the appellant Chulhan Rawani who has stated that on hearing the cry of alarm, he had come near the house of Arun Thakur and had seen deceased Bhanu Das being armed with a countrymade pistol and a bag. He has stated that several persons were assembled from the locality. In cross-examination, this witness has disclosed that he did not see any injury on the person of Bhanu Das. D.W. 2 – Md. Nijamuddin has not stated anything of substance which would compel this Court to consider his evidence also. 16. It has been submitted by Mr. K.N. Ray, learned counsel for the appellants in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 782 of 2009 and 789 of 2009 that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. He has stated that there was no intention for committing the murder of the deceased Bhanu Das from the side of the appellants. Learned counsel further submits that the act of the appellants can at best be termed to be culpable homicide not amounting to murder as neither there was a premeditation in the acts of the said appellants nor there was any previous planning which ultimately led to the incident caused by the appellants. Learned counsel in such circumstances submits that even it is assumed that the appellants were involved in the lynching of Bhanu Das, the same at best makes out a case under Section 304 Part II and the benefit should be given to them by releasing them from custody. 17. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the appellants in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) Nos. 17. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the appellants in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) Nos. 788 of 2009 & 799 of 2009 has submitted that only two eye-witnesses were present as per the statement of the Investigating Officer. Learned senior counsel further submits that P.W. 1 has given an exaggerated statement as in paragraph 38 of his statement, inasmuch as, although it has been alleged that the appellants had fired upon the deceased, but neither any fire arm injury was found on the person of the deceased nor any cartridges were recovered from the place of occurrence. Learned senior counsel further submits that so far as the P.W. Nos. 4, 5 & 6 are concerned, they are not the eye-witnesses and in fact the Investigating Officer on being informed went to the place of occurrence, but he could not find any such witness present there. Learned senior counsel has also drawn the attention of the Court to the conduct of the Investigating Officer who has deposed that the deceased had given his statement before him, but the statement was never recorded as a dying declaration or a Fard Beyan which shows the manner in which the investigation has been conducted. Learned senior counsel further submits that the witnesses have stated that the deceased had died on the way to the hospital, but the Investigating Officer has disclosed otherwise. It has further been stated that the improbability of the entire allegations would be evident from the fact that neither the mother nor the brother and sister of the deceased had ever visited the hospital. He has further stated that P.W. 10, the Investigating Officer had not at all disclosed about the presence of P.W. Nos. 4, 5 & 6 at the place of occurrence. Learned senior counsel while referring to the perfunctory investigation has stated that even the sketch map was not prepared. He further adds that although it has been stated by the witnesses that several persons had assembled at the place of occurrence, but none were examined. It has also been stated that the prosecution story relied upon the evidence of eye-witnesses, but their evidences cannot be considered to be an eye-witness version of the events. He further adds that although it has been stated by the witnesses that several persons had assembled at the place of occurrence, but none were examined. It has also been stated that the prosecution story relied upon the evidence of eye-witnesses, but their evidences cannot be considered to be an eye-witness version of the events. It has further been submitted that there was no premeditated plan by the accused persons which resulted in the lynching of the deceased and at best even it is assumed that the appellants had taken part in the occurrence, the same was only in order to teach the deceased a lesson and therefore in absence of any premeditated intention on the part of the appellants, no case under Section 302 of I.P.C. is made out. Submission has been advanced that although it has been stated that the deceased was dragged from the first place of occurrence to the second place of occurrence which is behind the house of Arun Thakur, but no scratch mark was found on the person of the deceased which belies the prosecution case. Learned senior counsel further adds that the wife of the deceased namely, Kunti Devi was not examined by the prosecution and in fact various other important facts have not been recorded in the Fard Bayan. Learned senior counsel submits that although in the FIR, it was alleged that it was Shambhu Singh who called the deceased, but the evidence depicts otherwise. It has further been stated that no independent person of the locality has been examined by the prosecution. It has been stated that only one injury was found on the vital part of the body which further goes to show that there was no intention on the part of the accused persons to commit the murder of the deceased. Learned senior counsel submits an alternative mode of argument that if this court is inclined to uphold the conviction, the surrounding circumstances would only go to prove that it was a culpable homicide not amounting to murder and therefore, the appellants be given in such circumstances the benefit of Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. 18. Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) Nos. Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) Nos. 12 of 2010, 811 of 2010 and 934 of 2009 has basically reiterated the submission advanced by the learned counsel who are appearing for the appellants in the other appeals. 19. Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, learned A.P.P. on the other hand has stated that the prosecution has secured the conviction of the appellants in view of the credibility of the witnesses more notably of P.W. Nos. 1, 4, 5 & 6. It has been stated that P.W. 1 is an independent witness who had overcome the fear psychosis and the threat perception given by the accused persons while deposing before the learned trial court and giving a vivid description of the incident which he had seen from behind the Panchayat Bhawan. Learned A.P.P. further submits that although there are some contradictions in the statement of the witnesses, but the same is accepted in view of the long passage of time and in fact such minor contradictions cannot cast a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. He has further stated that on the information received from Md. Garden (P.W. 2) the sister, brother and the mother of the deceased had reached the place of occurrence and had seen the appellants variously armed assaulting the deceased, as a result of which she had subsequently died. Learned A.P.P. further submits that there is no material to disbelieve the evidence of P.W. 1, 4, 5 & 6. Learned A.P.P. further submits that so far as the defence witnesses are concerned, their evidence is not of much substance and in fact D.W. 1 in his cross-examination has stated that he did not see any injury on the person of the deceased which makes the evidence of D.W. 1 unbelievable and unconvincing. 20. On consideration of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel in the respective cases, we have gone through the lower court records. The case of the prosecution primarily rest upon the evidence of P.W. Nos. 1, 4, 5 & 6. P.W. 4 is the sister of the deceased, P.W. 5 is the brother of the deceased and P.W. 6 – the informant is the mother of the deceased. The case of the prosecution primarily rest upon the evidence of P.W. Nos. 1, 4, 5 & 6. P.W. 4 is the sister of the deceased, P.W. 5 is the brother of the deceased and P.W. 6 – the informant is the mother of the deceased. In the Fard Bayan, P.W. 6 has stated that one Shambhu Singh had come to her house and had taken away the deceased to Gadi Srirampur market and thereafter the deceased was subjected to brutal assault by the appellants. There appears to be some contradictions with respect to the Fard Bayan and the evidence of P.W. 6 as in her deposition during trial, she had stated that after she returned home along with P.W. 5, they were informed by Md. Garden (P.W. 2) about the assault being committed upon her son. The contradictions which has come to the fore with respect to the contents of the Fard Bayan and the evidence of P.W. 6 regarding the manner in which the deceased had gone to the place of occurrence is not a major contradiction which would create a fissure in the prosecution case, since so far as the next part of the incident is concerned, the same seems to have been corroborated by the witnesses regarding the participation of the appellants in committing the murder of the son of the informant. In fact there appears to be two places of occurrence – the first being the electric pole near the PCC road near the Ashok tree in front of Durga Mandir and the second place of occurrence is behind the house of the accused Arun Thakur. It has been the consistent case of the prosecution that the deceased Bhanu Das was tied to a pole and was brutally assaulted by the appellants and subsequent thereto, the deceased was dragged to the place behind the house of the accused Arun Thakur, wherein also he was subjected to assault. The evidence of the informant P.W. 6 reveals that she is the eye-witness to the occurrence as she had reached the place of occurrence along with her other son namely Monu Das (P.W. 5) who has also corroborated the evidence of P.W. 6. In fact P.W. 4, the sister of the deceased had also reached the place of occurrence along with the informant and had witnessed the assault. P.W. Nos. In fact P.W. 4, the sister of the deceased had also reached the place of occurrence along with the informant and had witnessed the assault. P.W. Nos. 4, 5 & 6 had reached the place of occurrence after the assault had already begun, but it is P.W. 1 who is an independent witness who had seen the entire incident by standing near the Panchayat Bhawan and although some exaggeration has been made by him in his evidence with respect to firing at the deceased which has not at all been proved, but even if such exaggeration is subtracted from the contents of the evidence of P.W. 1, a clear and cogent picture would emerge which would reveal that the deceased was assaulted initially by tying him to an electric pole and thereafter once again assaulting him behind the house of the accused Arun Thakur. The evidence of P.W. 1 who has disclosed about the threat to his life and had prayed for providing him proper security is unblemished and untainted barring the exaggerated statement made by him with respect to the use of fire arms by the accused persons. The defence has taken a plea that the accused Arun Thakur was threatened by the deceased Bhanu Das for which Arun Thakur had instituted Giridih (M) P. S. Case No. 232 of 2007, but the institution of the case appears to be a ground work made by the accused Arun Thakur to secure an order of acquittal in his favour. The reason for saying so is that the police after investigation in Giridih (M) P. S. Case No. 232 of 2007 has submitted final report which was also accepted by the learned C.J.M., Giridih. In fact the Investigating Officer in the final form which has been marked as Exhibit 10 has clearly stated that Arun Thakur has placed the pistol and live bombs near the body of the deceased Bhanu Das in order to create a defence that Bhanu Das was trying to commit dacoity and was lynched by the mob which had subsequently arrived. The defence has also relied much upon the purported enmity between the accused persons and Murari Bauri by stating that the appellants have been falsely implicated. The defence has also relied much upon the purported enmity between the accused persons and Murari Bauri by stating that the appellants have been falsely implicated. The existence of enmity between the parties would be all the more reason for the appellants to have committed the murder of Bhanu Das and there does appear to be a sufficient motive for doing such act. The defence has examined 2 witnesses out of which D.W. 1 had stated about the threatening given by the deceased Bhanu Das in his presence to the accused Arun Thakur, but the entire edifice built by the defence through the evidence of D.W. 1 seems to have been demolished in view of his subsequent statement, in which he has stated that he had not seen any injuries on the person of Bhanu Das when in fact the accused Arun Thakur in his FIR had stated about the assault made upon Bhanu Das by the villagers. Thus, it can be safely concluded that the defence version of committing assault upon the deceased Bhanu Das on account of the threat being given by him to the accused Arun Thakur is totally unbelievable and is a concocted story which has rightly been negated by the learned trial court. 21. So far as the evidence of P.W. Nos. 1, 4, 5 & 6 are concerned, they are overwhelming in nature and over shadows whatever contradictions have been recorded in the investigation of the Investigating Officer (P.W. 10) with respect to their absence as concluded by the Investigating Officer at the time when he had reached the place of occurrence. In fact although, the Investigating Officer had deposed that at the time of taking Bhanu Das away for treatment, he had given an oral dying declaration implicating all the appellants, but even if it is assumed that no such dying declaration was given by the deceased, as some of the witness have stated about the deceased being in an unconscious state, the same would however not create any shadow of doubt over the prosecution case in view of the consistent and corroborative nature of evidence as given by P.W. Nos. 1, 4, 5 & 6. 22. 1, 4, 5 & 6. 22. The next question which arises for consideration is the plea taken by the learned counsel for the respective parties that the incident was not pre-planned or premeditated and had occurred at the spur of the moment and therefore, the appellants at best can be convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. 23. The act of the accused persons cannot at all be summed up with a view to teach the deceased a lesson. The FIR reveals that the deceased was called on some pretext to the market where subsequently he was tied to an electric pole and was brutally assaulted by the accused persons and thereafter he was dragged and was once again assaulted behind the house of Arun Thakur. The Post Mortem report reveals that 8 injuries were found on the person of the deceased and his skull was also detected to be fractured. In fact the accused persons had a predetermined intention to commit the murder of Bhanu Das and they had also resorted by way of defence to project a picture that since Bhanu Das was involved in dacoity and was giving a threat to Arun Thakur, the villagers had lynched him and which ultimately resulted in his death. The act of Arun Thakur fortifies the said fact as he in concert with the other accused persons had got registered Giridih (M) P. S. Case No. 232 of 2007 in which the Investigating Officer has come to a conclusion that Arun Thakur has placed the bombs and pistol near the body of Bhanu Das in order to create a defence. The defence has failed to highlight that the incident had occurred on the spur of the moment or on account of the threatening being caused to Arun Thakur from the deceased as the subsequent events and the evidence of the witnesses discloses that a flimsy attempt was made by the defence to give the entire incident a colour of mob lynching on account of the purported threat given to Arun Thakur by the deceased. The act of the appellant does not come within the exception to Section 300 of I.P.C. as there was a premeditated conspiracy and intention to cause bodily harm to the deceased and the manner of assault and the injury suffered by the deceased as per the Post Mortem report clearly establishes beyond doubt that the appellants were of the know that such assault is likely to cause the death of Bhanu Das. Learned counsel for the appellants have vehemently argued that only one injury was found on the vital part of the body of Bhanu Das which according to the learned counsel for the appellants indicate that there was no intention to commit the murder of Bhanu Das, but the fact remains that the deceased was tied to an electric pole, brutally assaulted on his person as also on his head which led to the fracture of the skull, and was subsequently dragged near the house of Arun Thakur, where he was once again assaulted which would lead to a conclusion that the act of the appellants do not come under Section 304 Part II of I.P.C. and is squarely an offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. 24. Thus, on consideration of the entire aspects of the case, this Court comes to a conclusion that the appellants were rightly convicted for the offence under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. and sentenced accordingly and there being no reason to cause interference in the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 25.07.2009 and 27.07.2009 respectively, we are not inclined to entertain these appeals which accordingly, are dismissed.